Standing Committee G

[Mr. Bill O'Brien in the Chair]

Anti-social Behaviour Bill

Bill O'Brien: Before I call the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) to move the next amendment, I draw the Committee's attention to the front page of the amendment paper and to the programming resolution, which has been printed again. It will not, however, apply to this sitting. I also draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that new clause 2, which we are likely to reach today, is on the back page of the amendment paper. Hon. Members may be looking for it.Clause 18 Parenting contracts in cases of exclusion from school or truancy

Clause 18 - Parenting contracts in cases of exclusion from school or truancy

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in
clause 18, page 16, line 1, after 'body', insert 'or head teacher'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 44, in 
clause 18, page 16, line 3, at end insert 
 'or any statement which the local education authority, governing body or head teacher believe, in their entire discretion, is appropriate for their side of a parenting contract'.
 Amendment No. 45, in 
clause 18, page 16, line 5, at end insert 
 'or any other requirements which may be thought appropriate'.
 Amendment No. 46, in 
clause 18, page 16, line 11, at end insert 'head teacher,'.
 Amendment No. 206, in 
clause 18, page 16, line 12, leave out 'local education authority or'.
 Amendment No. 207, in 
clause 18, page 16, line 13, leave out subsection (8).
 Amendment No. 47, in 
clause 18, page 16, line 13, after 'obligations', insert 
 'on the part of the head teacher, local education authority or governing body'.
 Amendment No. 48, in 
clause 18, page 16, line 15, leave out 'must' and insert 'should'.

Nick Hawkins: We are delighted to welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. O'Brien, on a bright and sunny morning. Your fellow Chairman, Mr. Cran, kept us in order in the afternoon sitting earlier in the week, as I am sure you will know.
 This is an important group of amendments. I make it clear at the outset that amendments Nos. 47 and 207 are alternatives to each other. It might help the Minister when he responds to know that they are alternative ways of approaching the issue. We believe that the Government have not got the clause right. As 
 for which one the Government should adopt at a later stage as a Government amendment, on Report or in another place, we have no strong preference. 
 We have now reached some of the issues to which I referred on Tuesday: I jumped the gun and got a little ahead of myself when I talked about head teachers at a previous sitting. The amendments are related and are not merely probing. They deal with issues that are significant for the teaching profession. Inevitably, many of the amendments that relate to parenting contracts are interlinked. I hope, Mr. O'Brien, that you will understand if some of the things that I and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee say are linked to other groups of amendments. I am sure that we can rely on you to be appropriately lenient and not rule us out of order if we stray a little on to overlapping groups of amendments. 
 Amendment No. 43 would insert the words ''or head teacher'' into subsection (4)(b). It is important that head teachers should have the opportunity to submit statements that they agree to provide support to help parents comply with a parenting contract. 
 Amendment No. 44 has perhaps even greater substance. We seek to add at the end of paragraph (b): 
''or any statement which the local education authority, governing body or head teacher believe, in their entire discretion, is appropriate for their side of a parenting contract.''
 This is another genuine attempt to improve the Bill by providing more flexibility, so that the LEA, the governing body, or the head teacher can include something sensible and helpful as part of their side of a parenting contract. When dealing with disruptive children who have been involved in antisocial behaviour, it is important to involve the LEA, the governing body and the head teacher—the people closest to the issue. As I know from my constituency work, it often happens that several children in one family are all behaving anti-socially. One parent, or two parents must sign up to an agreement with a school that relates to a series of children. We believe that those who know the family and the child best should not be restricted by the Bill and should be able to put whatever they like in the statement. 
 Amendment No. 45 makes a similar point. It seeks to add at the end of subsection (5): 
''or any other requirements which may be thought appropriate.''
 At present subsection (5) reads: 
''The requirements mentioned . . . may include (in particular) a requirement to attend counselling or guidance sessions.''
 Those are not restrictive words but we felt that it might be helpful to make it absolutely clear that the requirements may include any other requirements that may be thought appropriate. 
 Amendment No. 46 returns to the point about head teachers. Subsection (7) reads: 
''A parenting contract must be signed by the parent and signed on behalf of the local education authority or governing body.''
 Once again we think that it is crucial to insert the words ''head teacher''. I have had many discussions with head teachers in my constituency. All members of the Committee will have had discussions with the teaching profession about these controversial issues. It 
 is undoubtedly head teachers to whom these new powers should be given. There is no question but that it would be helpful for the head teacher—the person at the sharp end who knows the children best—to have the power to sign the contract, not merely the governing body. 
 Amendments Nos. 47 and 207 are the two alternatives that I mentioned earlier. One approach is simply to delete subsection (8), which reads: 
''A parenting contract does not create any obligations in respect of whose breach any liability arises in contract or in tort.''
 The second approach is to keep subsection (8) but to add at the end: 
''on the part of the head teacher, local education authority or governing body.''
 Parents should understand that firm, legal obligations are placed on them. We understand what the Government are seeking to do. They want to ensure that aggressive parents cannot sue, in contract or in tort, the LEA, the governing body or the head teacher. That is a laudable objective. The last thing that we want is a further expansion of the compensation culture. 
 I am not challenging the basis of what the Government are trying to do. I see the Minister nod to indicate that he understands my approach. Our view is that it will be more helpful to have parents clearly understand that they have firm obligations in law and that, if necessary, the courts might become involved in ensuring that those obligations bite firmly on parents. We do not want parents to be able to sue the LEA, the head teacher or the governing body. 
 All these matters run together. I turn to our amendment No. 48, which seeks to change ''must'' to ''should'' in subsection (9). At the moment, the Bill says: 
''Local education authorities and governing bodies of relevant schools must, in carrying out their functions in relation to parenting contracts, have regard to any guidance which is issued by the appropriate person from time to time for that purpose''.
 We suggest changing ''must'' to ''should'', because I hear from just about every head teacher and teacher, and certainly every governing body of the schools in my constituency, that they are fed up to the back teeth with legislation and guidance from the Department for Education and Skills. There are pages and pages of bureaucracy, for which I do not blame the Minister because it is not his Department. All the legislation, circulars and material from the DFES to teachers, head teachers and governing bodies is dictatorial. The amendment simply changes the terminology slightly but it would send a helpful signal in terms of relations between the Government and schools if the provision said not ''must'' but ''should''. 
 Obviously, the Minister will have talked to his colleagues in the DFES, as my hon. Friends and I have talked to our colleagues in the shadow DFES team. In the sensitive area of the relationship between schools, head teachers, teachers, governing bodies and LEAs with disruptive families, we do not want to be too dictatorial. We understand that the Government want 
 in legislation to encourage head teachers and governing bodies to look at guidance but changing ''must'' to ''should'' would be helpful. 
 You, Mr. O'Brien, and I hope all members of the Committee will see that we are talking about important matters. The views that I am putting forward are held not merely by Conservative Members. They are shared by many head teachers and teachers to whom I have spoken in my constituency. We will return to the concerns of head teachers about the way the legislation will operate on subsequent amendments. We will come to the concerns of the teaching unions, which are unhappy about being asked to be on the deciding end of some of the penalty clauses. I cannot stress our concerns too strongly. 
 Beyond my constituency, these concerns are shared widely across Surrey and other counties. I have talked to colleagues such as the shadow Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), and the shadow schools Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). They are hearing the same concerns about the proposals from teachers throughout the country. 
 I have had a personal interest in education not only throughout my 11 years in the House; I spent some time teaching before I qualified at the Bar. My mother was a deputy headmistress. My wife used to be vice-chairman of education on a county council, with a particular interest in pupil referral units and disruptive children. I have a great personal commitment to the issue and I want the legislation to be right. 
 The Minister understands that we are not trying to undermine the Bill. We believe that the changes we propose in this group of amendments and on subsequent clauses will improve the legislation. If it is to work, it needs to be right at the beginning. I care passionately about that and I hope the Minister will take seriously what we say.

Annette Brooke: I am coming from a slightly different direction but I agree with the aims of the clause. It is important to place that on the record. We have a responsibility to make the whole package work. I took a step back and thought, ''We have home school agreements. What's the difference?'' Of course there is a difference, because we are tackling the challenging behaviour that results in exclusions. Truancy may be part of that or it may be separate. These are difficult issues to crack and a multi-agency approach is required.
 The parenting contracts are part of a process and therefore consistency is needed all the way through. Having the head teacher sign the contract might sound convincing on the face of it. However, that could lead to a parenting order, in relation to which it is important to have the LEA doing the enforcing and the head teachers and the school doing the supporting. Therefore, I suspect that it is rather important to keep the separation at this stage, although I shall be interested to hear the Minister's words. 
 Having said that, I am not sure that it is logical for the clause to mention the governing body if the head teacher is not mentioned. There is no amendment on 
 that matter but I make that point to the Minister. The problem is complex and involves dealing with children whom one would wish to give the greatest possible support. The school must have perfect freedom to be the supportive people and not the enforcers in the process. The amendment is unnecessary and does not add much. However, it is important to debate what exactly the parenting contract is all about, which sets the scene for this morning's discussion. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to the amendment.

Vernon Coaker: Is not the whole point of the clause and the amendment, whether or not it is right, to allow the school to reassert its authority? In that sense, the provisions are about enforcement. The hon. Lady is right that most of the time one wants the head teacher to discuss things and to come to a voluntary agreement. Despite that, the provisions are about trying to enforce the authority of the school in a situation in which everything else has failed.

Annette Brooke: We are talking about a preliminary stage. We are saying that there are supportive measures that we can introduce quickly enough, which must surely be the basis of the provisions—by the way, I am supporting the Bill in not seeing the head teacher as part of the process. However, we need to be logical all the way through. If one puts in ''head teacher'' at this point in the Bill, one needs to have it all the way through, because things will not work otherwise. That is the argument for keeping the head teacher out. There is a longer process.

Nick Hawkins: I said that part of the basis for our amendments is the fact that the Government refer a lot to head teachers in subsequent clauses. Because of that we are trying to be logical all the way through, as the hon. Lady suggests we should be, by putting ''head teacher'' in this clause.

Annette Brooke: That is the point that I am trying to make. We need to get consistency at the beginning, which is why I am throwing the challenge back at the Minister. If one leaves the head teacher out, one must consider the inclusion of the governing body, because that leads to a halfway house.

Bob Ainsworth: Let me first turn to amendments No. 43 and 46. I understand the intention behind the amendments. Head teachers who work with parents daily should and will have a say in how best both to persuade those parents to take responsibility for their children's attendance and behaviour and to support them in doing so. However, a parenting contract may require a parent to attend guidance or counselling sessions, which must be funded. The party that enters into the contractual arrangement with the parent must therefore supply the funding.
 In a school, the governing body currently has control over the budget; although it body delegates certain powers to the head teacher, it has responsibility for the budget. That is why the governing body is being given the power to enter into a parenting contract. 
 Under the amendment, the head teacher alone, without the approval of the governing body, could 
 enter into a commitment that involved a financial liability. That responsibility should rest with the governing body. There are different levels of delegation in different circumstances in different schools. We are not trying to impose a rigid system to override that. However, unless we want to blur the responsibility for a school's budget, it must be the governing body that enters into a contractual arrangement that could lead to financial liability.

Matthew Green: I am slightly concerned about where the Minister is taking us. It seems that the clause reflects who is to carry the can financially rather than the best way of managing a disruptive child. If the concern is over finances, we should make arrangements to deal with that, perhaps at LEA level. It is not wise to justify the clause purely on the ground of financial responsibility.

Bob Ainsworth: I ask the hon. Gentleman not to be so silly so early in the morning. We are considering voluntary contracts entered into with parents in order to try to control the behaviour of their children, and the support that is needed on the other side of the equation in order for those to work. That involves a cost and a fundamental principle—when one takes a decision, one has to take responsibility for the facts that flow from it. The Liberal Democrats may not understand that, as is illustrated by some of their taxation policy, as well as their comments in Committee. If the governing body is going to pay for the support that will be necessary to make the contract work, the governing body must have the legal power to enter into the contract. If the LEA is to bear those financial consequences, it should have that legal responsibility. The Liberal Democrats appear to believe that we can give the responsibility to one body and impose financial consequences on another. We cannot.

Annette Brooke: I now have a concern because it is sometimes difficult to persuade schools to take on pupils who have been excluded from other schools. It is right for a school to want a parenting contract if it is to accept a pupil who has been excluded but I cannot see a governing body being keen on accepting something that will take a chunk out of its budget. Does the Minister envisage that the LEA will be more proactive in such cases?

Bob Ainsworth: In all probability, it will. That is why the LEA is there—it will provide the necessary services. However, the school will potentially provide some back-up. None of that is cost free. If a contract has to be entered into, which might involve a cost to the school, the governing body should have control over who enters into it. If the costs are to be borne by the LEA, it should have power over the contract. It is not unreasonable to suggest that those who risk incurring a financial burden should be those who enter into the contract, who sign it and who accept responsibility in the first instance.
 Whoever enters into a contract with a parent, whether it is an LEA or a governing body, has to be trusted by the parent. At this stage, the contract is entirely voluntary. The LEA or governing body have 
 the option to enter into a contract, because they must satisfy themselves that they are capable of delivering their side of the bargain. It would be no good if they entered into a contract that they were not in a position to fulfil. 
 We do not expect governing bodies to take a route that imposes ridiculous burdens on their own budgets. They will not do that. They must feel comfortable that the liability that they accept is one that they can fulfil and that they see as a priority, and they must approach their side of the bargain freely. 
 The governing body may choose to delegate the power to a head teacher; we expect that to happen in many schools. I assure members of the Committee that although the Bill does not give head teachers separate powers with respect to parenting contracts, they will be able to play a significant role in implementing the provision. 
 Amendment No. 44 would have the effect of allowing the local education authority or the governing body further discretion to decide what to agree to do in their part of a parenting contract, which need not include support. That would completely change the nature of the parenting contract. The provision is designed to provide a parent with the support to enable them better to perform their responsibilities. 
 The amendment is not necessary if its intention is that the local education authority or the governing body should be able to include additional material as well as the statement that it agrees to provide the support. The provision as drafted does not prevent the contract from containing any other statements by the local education authority or governing body, provided that the parent signs up to the contract. The only real restriction on the contents of a contract is that it should be agreed by both parties. 
 Amendment No. 45 is also unnecessary. Clause 18 already provides that a parenting contract should contain a statement that the parent agrees to comply with the requirements specified in the parenting contract. Subsection (5) provides that the contract ''may include'' a requirement to attend counselling or guidance. Counselling and guidance are mentioned specifically as they are an important aspect of a parenting contract but that does not mean that the parent is limited to those requirements.

Vernon Coaker: Guidance and counselling sessions for parents are fundamental to the proper working of the clause. Will the Minister confirm that he will talk to whoever is responsible for ensuring that enough of those guidance and counselling sessions are provided, so that they become a practical option under the parenting contracts?

Bob Ainsworth: We will have to do a lot of work to ensure that all the agencies buy into the measures and that the facilities are provided to make them work. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Ministers in the Department for Education and Skills and others in Government will have to follow that through, to ensure that such provision is made.
 Amendment No. 47 seeks to make the parent who has signed the contract subject to obligations in the contract and in tort, whereas the local education authority or governing body would not be subject to those obligations. That would defeat the object of' parenting contracts, which is to work on a voluntary basis with parents. The threat of creating contractual obligations and liability in tort would make parents far less likely to sign a contract. One could even envisage cases in which parents were given legal advice not to enter into a contract with the school, for fear of taking on such liability. 
 The hon. Member for Surrey Heath wants an element of coercion by the authorities, and that exists in the Bill. The situation must be looked at in the round, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) said. Down the road, potentially, is a binding parenting order imposed by the court. As it does not involve going to court or the law, the parenting contract arrangement will cut out bureaucracy and coercion when parents are happy to enter into the contract and to pick up their responsibilities. Imposing a potential legal liability on the parents at that first stage would not be helpful.

Nick Hawkins: As I was confident that he would, the Minister is addressing difficult issues very sensitively. He will accept that we are debating a judgment call but does he recognise that, as head teachers have told me, solicitors for a disruptive family who would advise parents not to sign up to a parenting contract if there were legal liability are just as likely to give that advice if there is no legal liability? One must try to understand how such a situation appears to head teachers, who often have 20 or 30 years' experience of dealing with disruptive families.

Bob Ainsworth: I accept entirely the hon. Gentleman's point, and if we were examining parenting contracts in isolation from the rest of the powers in the Bill, he would be right that we should consider coercive powers. However, taken with the other measures that are available, I hope that he can see that the potential exists for a voluntary agreement in many cases. The lawyers that he mentioned would have to be mindful that, if their clients failed to address voluntarily the problems that their child was causing, they would be leaving them open to further action. They would have a duty to advise their clients about that.

John Randall: I hope not to get a rebuke similar to that which the Minister gave to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green)—in my case, any stupidity would be natural rather than conscionable. We have talked about parent or parents, and I have looked through the Bill to find a definition of that. Does the contract have to cover both parents if a child is living with both of them? What would happen if one parent were happy to sign a contract but the other one were not? I am sure that there is a good legal answer but I would like clarification.

Bob Ainsworth: It is treachery rather than stupidity to ask me a question like that at this time in the morning. [Laughter.] I have learnt to be wary of the hon. Gentleman over some time, and I shall come back
 to him on what would happen if one parent were prepared to agree while another were not.
 The threat of creating a contractual obligation and liability would make parents less likely to enter into a contract and would defeat the object of the voluntary part of the arrangements. If there is a lack of co-operation, the local education authority and governing body may, in cases of exclusion from school for serious misbehaviour, apply to the court for a free-standing parenting order. The courts may take into account any refusal to enter into or breach of a parenting contract in deciding whether to impose such an order. In cases of truancy, the local education authority or the authorised school staff could issue a penalty notice under clause 22, or the LEA could prosecute for the offence. 
 Amendment No. 48 would remove the necessity for LEAs and governing bodies to have regard to any guidance issued about parenting contracts in cases of exclusion from school or truancy. That would compromise our aim that parenting contracts should be used consistently across the country. We intend the guidance to advise on when to consider using parenting contracts for tackling poor behaviour, attendance or both, and when the measures would be appropriate for use in exclusion cases. Parents should be able to feel confident that they will receive similar equitable treatment, irrespective of the school that their child attends. Guidance should ensure that that is the case. 
 The hon. Member for Surrey Heath has reflected on the matter and thinks that it is dreadfully authoritarian. I do not think that that is the case. We are talking about the words, ''must have regard''. We are not talking about a need to comply with the letter of the guidance in every circumstance. I do not think that we are far apart in the matter. He contends that the words should be, ''should have regard''. I do not think that the measure is quite as draconian as many people believe. The local education authority or governing body need not slavishly follow the guidance if it is inappropriate in an individual case. If there is good reason in an individual case, the local education authority can depart from the guidance.

Nick Hawkins: I am pleased that the Minister understands that it is not only we who are saying this—the teaching and voluntary organisations have made their concerns known. Does he understand that if the Bill contains phrases such as ''must have regard to'', the impression in the minds of a governing body or a head teacher is that they really must do it? That tends towards the slavish following of the words. If the words were, ''should have regard to'', it would be different. I realise that it is a small point but will he acknowledge that it is a valid point, and keep the matter under review? Having considered not only what we have said but what some of the teaching bodies and voluntary charitable bodies have said, perhaps he will consider tabling an amendment.

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman is worried about presentational issues. He seems to be urging me
 to appear soft and cuddly, on behalf of the Government.

Shona McIsaac: No, don't do it.

Bob Ainsworth: I understand that matters can be misinterpreted but I am not sure that that is the case in this instance. The words do not sound dreadfully authoritarian to me. However, I will reflect on the words of the hon. Gentleman.
 I have gathered my thoughts on the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) about the situation where one parent was happy to go along with a contract but another was not. Parenting orders and parenting contracts could apply to one or both parents. If one parent is unwilling, the potential is there to enter into a contract with the willing parent. That contract would not be binding on the unwilling parent and that is potentially problematic. In those circumstances, a parenting order may be more appropriate. Many cases will involve an absent parent who is not associated with a child's welfare. The parent with responsibility for care will be able to enter into the contract, and the school will be free to enter into a voluntary contract with that parent. It is possible that there will be circumstances in which both parenting contracts and parenting orders will apply.

Matthew Green: The hon. Member for Uxbridge has made a valid point. I am aware of an instance in which two parents have split up. One parent has mental health problems and the children are with that parent for half the week. When the children are with that parent, they fail to attend school. When they are with the other parent, they attend perfectly normally. My concern is about how that should be dealt with. If parenting orders are to be issued, will they be issued to the parent who is getting the children to school, or to the parent who is failing to get the children to school? That is a grey area.

Bob Ainsworth: Any Member of Parliament who holds surgeries and deals with some of the problems that come before them will know how many difficulties there are. As I said, we are talking about a voluntary arrangement. If one parent is doing their best, and there is a degree of compliance in terms of what is sought from the child, the school or the LEA will want to enter into a parenting contract not with that part of the partnership but with the part that is failing. As I said, entering into the contract will be voluntary. Of course, in court cases and in the coercive situation of an order further down the line, the courts will have to wrestle with all the complexities that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I do not pretend that that will be easy.
 Amendment No. 206 would exclude the LEA from signing a parenting contract. It is intended to ensure that LEAs do not act in isolation when entering into such a contract but it would leave the governing body as the only party able to sign one with the parent. We appreciate that there will be many circumstances in which the governing body is best placed to arrange a contract on behalf of the school but that will not always be the case. LEA officers often work directly with the pupils and families that parenting contracts are meant to help. 
 Where pupils persistently fail to attend school, the LEA, through its education welfare service, works closely with those pupils, their parents and schools to bring about an improvement in attendance. Similarly, the LEA would be involved if a pupil were excluded from school, either permanently or for a series of fixed periods. In permanent exclusion cases, for example, the LEA is responsible for reintegrating pupils into full-time education. In some cases, therefore, it will be most suitable for the LEA to enter into the contract.

Nick Hawkins: I am glad that the Minister mentioned LEA education welfare services. To an extent, our amendments were intended to draw him out on such issues and to get him to respond to them on the record.
 The head teachers and experienced counsellors to whom I spoke asked why the Bill made no mention of what used to be called truancy officers. We are, after all, talking about children playing truant. Of course, truancy officers have been given the new and—to use the Minister's phrase—more cuddly-sounding title of education welfare officers. None the less, would not it be sensible—this is one of the issues I had in mind, although I did not table any amendments on it, and I am glad that the Minister raised it—for the Government to include education welfare officers in the Bill?

Bob Ainsworth: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The reason why is along the same lines as that for including the governors rather than head teachers of schools. Head teachers will often be at the forefront of sorting the issues out but the liability will be on the governing body. The Bill must therefore draw the governing body into the contract. In the same way, liability will be with the LEA, albeit that the work is done by the education welfare service—the old truancy officers, as the hon. Gentleman rightly noted. I think that the point is covered, as far as legislative necessity is concerned, by saying that the LEA must be the partner in the contract. We want parenting contracts to be used widely, and maintaining the flexibility for the LEA or the governing body to enter into and to sign parenting contracts will make that possible.
 We intend to issue guidance to emphasise the importance of collaboration between the LEA and the school in arranging parenting contracts. The guidance will stress that the LEA should not act in isolation when entering into such contracts. 
 Under amendment No. 207, there might be no consequences should either of the parties that entered into a contract fail to carry out what they committed themselves. For example, either party could sue the other in the county court for breach of contract. The aim underlying the contract is to encourage parents who are unable to deal with their child's poor behaviour or bad attendance because they have poor parenting skills to accept support, at that stage voluntarily. We want the process to be as straightforward as possible. As I said earlier, the threat of proceedings would act as a disincentive for the parents to enter into a contract. In addition, 
 parenting contracts are two-sided agreements. If we introduced sanctions against parents for breaches, we would have to introduce similar sanctions against LEAs and schools, and the hon. Member for Surrey Heath has already pointed out some of the difficulties and liabilities that schools might face should we go down that road. 
 I make a wider point in response to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. There seems to be a view abroad—we have all heard it—that caring services ought to be almost exclusively caring, and that they should not get involved in enforcement because it breaks the relationship that they are trying to build with the people whom they serve. I totally reject that. I do not see why enforcement services, such as the police, should not have concerns or cares about the consequences of what they are doing. I do not believe that caring services, such as education welfare services, schools or social services departments, should see their role as exclusively supportive. There is an enforcement role, and I do not see why one should detract from the other. 
 We must keep sending the message to organisations that are supposed to be performing a public service that they should not draw those lines and distinctions. In many circumstances, their responsibilities are holistic. The hon. Lady raises a problem. People say, ''Oh dear. We can't possibly go there. It would ruin our relationship with the parents or with our clients''. I reject that as nonsense.

Annette Brooke: I speak with some experience on the matter, again, based on example, not firm or widespread evidence. Education welfare officers already deal with parenting orders. They have much experience of operating on behalf of the youth offending teams. Those to whom I have spoken have said that they try to separate their roles under parenting orders. One educational welfare officer will do the pursuing and the hard part of the parenting order, and another from the same authority will deal with some of the other aspects of the order. Some professionals, at least, have made that deliberate decision in order to make the orders workable. We cannot pronounce that there is only one way to do these things.

Bob Ainsworth: I am not saying that it is as simple as that but I know that such views exist and are held fairly widely. I believe that they are potentially damaging. As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath says, it is like the good cop, bad cop routine. Social services departments, schools and so on all have an enforcement job—to educate children or to look after children in need. They cannot simply walk away from that side of the job while getting on with the rest of it.

Liz Blackman: Before a parenting contract is considered, the school will have been involved in supporting children and parents in a number of ways, in order to get the children to school and to behave acceptably. The school would clearly be able to demonstrate that such an approach had been taken but had not succeeded, which is where parenting contracts kick in.

Bob Ainsworth: That is a far more mature way of going about things than pretending to parents that there are no sanctions. We must provide back-up, support and care—and sometimes sanctions. It is not for anyone to say, ''It is my job to provide support. Somebody else will do dreadful things to you if you do not comply.'' It is a false division. It has nothing to do with the amendment.
 I ask the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister has set out the Government's response in his usual careful way. There are judgment calls to be made, and I am sure that there will be further interesting debates when the Bill is considered in another place. As we know, many Members of the other place have spent a lifetime working with children, including in education, and they will have much to say about it. Given that the Minister said that he would keep certain matters under review, the legislation may take account of some of my points.
 I shall not press the amendments to a vote, although they are important, because they involve matters of judgment. I strongly agree with and endorse the view that the Minister expressed towards the end of his remarks: all agencies have a responsibility to emphasise the toughness, rather than concentrate only on what one might call the soft-cop approach. If the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole disagrees, well, the Liberal Democrats are always on the side of the soft cop, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) observed. That is one reason why they lack credibility. I totally agree with the Minister's latter remarks about the need for sanctions. 
 It is fair to say, however, that some of the charitable organisations that have written to me and perhaps to other members of the Committee, such as Barnardo's and the Children's Society, have expressed concerns. It is fascinating that the Children's Society says that the extension of the powers in this part of the Bill is ''open to debate''. That is why we are debating it. Barnardo's also sent a helpful brief, saying of the legislation: 
''There is no requirement for the LEA or Governing Body to consult with or make reference to any other agency or person before establishing a contract''.
 Again, it was important to make that point on the record, and the Government might want to consider it. We did not feel the need to table amendments in that respect, but I thought it important to state the fact that organisations such as Barnardo's and the Children's Society, which do very valuable work, have made those observations. The Government and others can consider them as the Bill progresses. 
 At this stage, I do not seek to pursue these matters further. There are related issues about which we feel even more strongly and to which we shall return under later amendments, but for now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Vernon Coaker: The last part of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Minister and the contribution made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath are crucial to the debate on trying to change the culture of some of the agencies that work in this field. Agencies need to understand that it does not help children if they talk only about supporting, consulting and working together. There comes a time when people must almost be forced to accept their responsibilities. In some cases, parents, whether there is one parent or two parents, have to be forced to accept their responsibilities. In some cases, it will be for the courts to determine where the responsibility lies.
 The crucial point is that people fundamentally misunderstand how society works if they say that it is always in the children's interests to act in a soft way in respect of those who do not accept their responsibilities. It is not true to say that, because at the end of the day it often is in a child's interests to force the parents, through legislation if necessary, to accept their responsibilities. If we cannot effect that cultural change with some agencies in terms of adopting a soft-cop, hard-cop regime, some of the Committee's aspirations will be difficult to meet. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 - Parenting orders in cases of

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 150, in
clause 19, page 16, line 23, leave out paragraph (b).

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 49, in 
clause 19, page 16, line 31, leave out 'twelve months' and insert 'two years'.
 Amendment No. 50, in 
clause 19, page 16, line 34, leave out 'three' and insert 'twelve'.
 Amendment No. 51, in 
clause 19, page 16, line 34, leave out 
 'and not more than once in any week'.
 Amendment No. 151, in 
clause 20, page 16, line 42, leave out 'must' and insert 'may'.
 Amendment No. 152, in 
clause 20, page 16, line 43, leave out '(amongst other things)'.
 Amendment No. 52, in 
clause 20, page 17, line 13, leave out subsection (4).
 Amendment No. 53, in 
clause 20, page 17, line 16, leave out 'must' and insert 'should'.

Annette Brooke: Amendment No. 150 is simply a probing amendment. It seeks to delete subsection (1)(b), a rather vague statement that refers to:
''such conditions as may be prescribed in regulations made by the appropriate person are satisfied.''
 We should like to have some idea of the sort of regulations that might be made in future before passing firm comment. Is that vagueness simply a symptom of the rushed nature of the Bill, and does the Minister have more up his sleeve? 
 Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 involve time limits and I will leave it to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to speak to those. The alternatives look rather long. I apologise to the Conservative Front Bench: we should have added our names to amendment No. 51 as it is very important. We need to consider the circumstances of individual parents: a single parent may be able to attend classes only at certain hours of the day; or they might have to take a concentrated course lasting only a short time to fit in with their working hours. More flexibility is needed. If someone is willing to attend more than once a week, we should allow that. I strongly support that amendment. 
 Amendment No. 151 takes us to the argument about using ''may'' instead of ''must''. We have talked about parenting orders as being part of a process that leads from the parenting contract. We hope that the contract works, because the voluntary process, with the full co-operation of everyone, has to be the best way. Although it may be necessary to go on to parenting orders—hopefully, in only a few extreme cases—we do not want to back the court into a corner in cases in which special circumstances might need to be taken into account. Often, children go off the rails for a short time after a bereavement in the family. The conditions of a parenting contract might not be met in a period of about six months, but it is possible to get that family back together again. The use of ''must'' is too prescriptive in cases in which it might be possible to get back into a parenting contract which, by definition, will always work best. 
 Amendment No. 152 is also prompted by the Bill's vagueness, which we do not like. It would remove the phrase ''(amongst other things)''. I hope that the Bill will state that all relevant and important factors will be taken into account. Why is that vague phrase needed? If it is appropriate in clause 20, why should it not be found throughout the Bill? Amendment No. 52 would remove clause 20(4), which is a catch-all provision, because we are worried about what it could mean in future. We want to know what we are signing up to. Is the provision another example of the Bill being rushed, with a view taken to sort it out later? Amendment No. 53 is similar to amendment No. 151 and I endorse it.

Nick Hawkins: We have some amendments in this group, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole has pointed out. I am grateful to her for stressing her party's support for some of our amendments—particularly amendment No. 51. Some of the amendments in the group amend clause 20, not clause 19, but I understand that they have been grouped together because they cover similar issues. May I return the compliment to the hon. Lady and say that we understand entirely the aim of the Liberal Democrats? Their amendment No. 150 tries to deal
 with a Henry VIII clause. Like her, we shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.
 We are again considering time limits. As in our debate on Tuesday about crack houses, there is a judgment call to be made about the maximum amount of time for which a parenting order applies. We think that two years would be a better maximum than 12 months. All of us—including the Minister, who has referred to his surgery experiences—have in our constituencies very disruptive families with a multitude of problems. People who come to our surgeries or write to us may be dealing with many different agencies and their problems take a long time to resolve. In some cases, sadly, their children's whole time at school is blighted by those problems. I see the Minister nodding; I am sure that he has come across such families. 
 Any period up to the limit can be chosen, but we felt that a maximum of two years would be more sensible than a restrictive 12 months. I hope that the Minister will, as he helpfully has done on other issues, offer to keep the matter under review. It might be that in another place, some of those with long experience of child care and education issues will agree that two years would be a wiser maximum period. 
 I have in mind the case in my constituency of a large child with a dominant personality and his single mother. The child has been described to me by the head teacher of the special school that he has been attending as having such a powerful personality, even at the age of about 13, that he completely dominates his mother, who is a relatively small lady. The child is used to getting his own way, and to influence him requires a huge investment of time. Going by how long I have been dealing with the case and how long the head teacher of the special school and LEA officials have been dealing with the child, I believe that that case will take a great deal longer than 12 months to sort out. Because of such cases, I think that it is important that the clause allow for a period of more than 12 months. 
 Even more crucially, with reference to our amendment No. 50, we feel that the guidance should be available for up to 12 months. I stress ''up to''; if three or four months were appropriate, that could be allowed. We are discussing the maximum, and we feel that three months is too little. Amendment No. 51, for which the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole has stressed her support, reflects our view that it is essential to have the opportunity to have the classes more than once a week. We cannot see any logic in the wording and I am glad that the hon. Lady agrees. There is no reason to restrict the sessions to 
''not more than once in any week''.
 Some children—and some parents—need intensive involvement, so we cannot understand why the wording is so restrictive. 
 The Liberal Democrats have put their names to our amendment No. 52, which seeks to remove another Henry VIII provision in clause 20(4). The hon. Lady supports our intention to change ''must'' to ''should'' for the reasons that I advanced in connection with the previous group of amendments. We feel even more 
 strongly than we did in the previous case that ''should'' would make for a wiser phraseology. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind. I do not wish to detain the Committee further, but I hope that the Minister will treat seriously our genuine attempts to improve the Bill. We feel strongly about those matters.

Bob Ainsworth: The clause enables local education authorities to apply for a parenting order if
''a pupil has been excluded . . . from . . . school for a fixed period or permanently''
 and conditions specified in regulations are met. Conservative amendments Nos. 49 and 50 are intended to double the maximum duration of a parenting order from 12 to 24 months, and to quadruple the maximum duration that a parent would be required to attend a parenting class under a parenting order from three to 12 months. We believe that 12 months is an adequate maximum for parents to be placed under an order and that three months is adequate for a parenting course. If they require additional parenting support, we would prefer parents to opt for it voluntarily. That would be more effective than parents being required to undergo orders and programmes for a much longer period. 
 The relevant clauses replicate the duration of an order and the parenting classes involved in that parenting order as set out in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The amendments would lead to an inconsistent approach to the execution of parenting orders and could cause confusion in their use. We believe that the periods in the Bill are the optimum and should not be altered. Before the hon. Member for Surrey Heath intervenes, let me say that I tried to check whether we had any representations on orders made under other legislation. I am told that none said that the orders were restrictive and that longer periods were wanted. 
 It would not be necessary to place the mother whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned under a parenting order if she was willing and simply needed support to deal with the dreadful situation that she faced. It needs to be made clear that enforcement relates to the parent, not the child.

Nick Hawkins: I understand what the Minister is saying, but will he say how many such orders have been made under the 1998 Act? My impression is that it has not been extensively used. He may have to write to me and to other members of the Committee if he does not have that information to hand. Some of the measures in the Act have not been regarded as especially effective, particularly in my part of the country. There has been some criticism of the fact that the Act has not been used extensively, but that may not be the case nationally, and I would be grateful if the Minister could let us know.
 Surely it would be helpful not to have to restart the whole process if three months is found to be not long enough? Traveller families, for example, might be made subject to an order for a short period, go to one class and not go again. The whole process would have 
 to start again if the period is restricted to three months.

Bob Ainsworth: I will think about the latter point, as that could be a difficulty. There were 3,106 parenting orders made under the initial legislation and, for the Committee's information, that does not represent a rising trend. We want them to be used more widely, but several parenting orders have been issued under other legislation. As I said, as far as I am aware, we have not had representations that the time limits are restrictive. The hon. Gentleman's second point, about having to start the whole process again in certain circumstances, is worth my exploring it.
 Clause 20 relates to the process of issuing a parenting order in cases of exclusion from school. Amendment No. 52 is intended to remove the power to issue further regulations relating specifically to that new use of parenting orders. The regulations will be used to set out who meets the cost of counselling or guidance sessions. The LEA staff are responsible for applying for a parenting order, and they may agree to do so on behalf of the school. We will therefore need to specify who will pay for the counselling or the guidance sessions. We expect the LEA to bear the costs associated with parenting orders, except where an alternative arrangement has been agreed with the school. 
 We want to ensure that there is an appropriate method of apportioning the costs, where necessary. We need to consult on that with those who are directly affected, which is why we want to leave the detail for inclusion in the regulations. However, I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern: when I first saw the provision, I shared his view that it was not necessary and that we could have included more in the Bill rather than left it to secondary legislation. However, I do not believe that we will be able during the passage of the Bill to conduct the consultation to clarify the circumstances in which there is a crossing over of the burden of costs. If we were able to do so, it would be helpful to include it in the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: I understand entirely what the Minister says, and I am grateful to him for saying that his first reaction to the proposed wording was the same as ours. Can he provide the Committee with drafts of the guidance that he and his advisers are considering? That would be informative and helpful not only for the members of the Committee, but for those involved in debates on Report and in another place.

Bob Ainsworth: That is reasonable request and I shall see whether it is a practical possibility during the passage of the Bill.
 For a parenting order made in cases of exclusion from school, the responsible officer could be a head teacher or a person nominated by a head teacher rather than the LEA officer already specified in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The regulations will be used to set out whom a head teacher may nominate as a responsible officer. That too will be subject to consultation. 
 Amendment No. 53 would remove the necessity for LEAs and governing bodies to have regard to any 
 guidance issued regarding parenting orders in cases of exclusion. That would compromise our aim that parenting orders should be used in a consistent fashion throughout the country. It is intended that the guidance will cover, among other things, when to consider applying for a parenting order during the exclusion process. Parents should be confident that they will receive similar and equitable treatment regardless of the school that their child attends. The guidance will ensure that that is the case, provided LEAs have regard to it. The obligation in the clause is to ''have regard to'' the guidance, which relates to the discussion that we had about parenting contracts. That means that the LEA or governing body need not slavishly follow the guidance if it is inappropriate in a particular case. 
 Amendment No. 51 would allow more flexibility in the delivery of parenting programmes by removing the one session per week restriction. I was glad to hear the views of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole on that amendment. We recognise that there are circumstances in which it would be reasonable for sessions to be held more or less frequently than once a week. The clause therefore needs to be modified to allow greater flexibility in the delivery of programmes under parenting orders, for example by making a residential component possible where it is considered necessary. However, simply deleting the words would also have the effect of enabling a three-month long residential course to take place, which is not what we intended and would not be proportionate.

Vernon Coaker: My hon. Friend the Minister has made some interesting points. He mentioned a residential component, perhaps for parents who have a parenting order imposed on them. Could he reassure me again that he will talk to his colleagues at the DFES about ensuring that there is adequate provision of guidance and counselling sessions, and of residential components if appropriate? Could he also clarify what is meant by a residential component?

Bob Ainsworth: In serious circumstances of chaotic parenting arrangements, residential provision should be considered. My hon. Friend is right that if we are going to have that, there needs to be provision in the community as well as the enabling power to allow authorities to impose it. That will not be a necessity in every situation, but only in particular and tough circumstances. I agree with my hon. Friend—it will be no good if we provide only the legislative framework without the wherewithal.
 If we extended the provisions in the way suggested by the amendment, it could interfere with the family responsibilities or child care arrangements of the parent and therefore have the opposite effect from the one intended. In addition, changing parenting orders alone will make them inconsistent with those made under the 1998 Act. Further work is needed on the drafting of the provisions to achieve a more flexible parenting order that is fully compatible with human rights. That will require Government amendments. We will examine the matter and table amendments that, I 
 hope, meet the points made by both Opposition parties.

Annette Brooke: I rise to be helpful and think ahead. The Government's White Paper referred to the Dundee experiment, which was conducted in the context of housing. People who were not living well with their neighbours—to put it mildly—were put into a residential situation. Parenting orders would fit in with that. I have not looked ahead to see where in the Bill we will debate orders relating to housing issues, but links to and changes in wording of those clauses could provide an holistic approach for the whole family.

Bob Ainsworth: I assure the hon. Lady that we acknowledge the need for flexibility and, at one end of the spectrum, residential provision. It is our intention to introduce Government amendments in that vein; she can examine them carefully and if she is not satisfied, I am certain that she will make her views known.
 Turning to the Liberal Democrat amendments, the precise circumstances in which an application can be made for a parenting order when a child has been excluded will be governed by regulations mentioned in subsection (1)(b), which amendment No. 150 would remove. The amendment would mean that each and any fixed period exclusion, including one-day exclusions, could trigger an application for a parenting order. Our intention is that an application for a parenting order should be made only following a permanent exclusion or a pattern of fixed period exclusions, and it is important that we set that out as a minimum condition in the regulations. 
 In addition, we intend that the guidance should state that an application for a parenting order should be made only when the exclusions are for serious misbehaviour. Examples of what constitutes serious misbehaviour will be given: they are likely to include violent and threatening behaviour. We intend to consult on the details of any regulations made under the clause. 
 Amendments Nos. 151 and 152 would ensure that neither the parent's previous conduct in relation to a parenting contract—their refusal to sign or failure to comply with a signed contract, for example—nor other matters, which might include mitigating circumstances, must necessarily be taken into account by the court in considering an application for a parenting order. The Government believe that the court should have to take into account any previous refusal by the parent to enter into a parenting contract or breach of any contract into which they had entered. 
 Parenting contracts are intended to help parents to focus on what needs to be done to improve their child's attendance at school or behaviour and to provide support to enable them to do that. If the parent refuses support or fails to keep to their side of an arrangement, that is highly relevant evidence for the court in considering whether to make a parenting order. I disagree with the Liberal Democrat amendments for those reasons. The clause makes it clear that the things to which I have referred are not 
 the only things that the court must take into account: such ''other things'' might include any extenuating circumstances that the parent might wish to offer in evidence. The clause as drafted is intended to avoid any doubt about the issues that must be considered. 
 I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole will withdraw the amendment. I ask the Committee to consider all other amendments, including amendment No. 51, in the light of the tabling of Government amendments on Report.

Nick Hawkins: In relation the Conservative amendments, I am particularly grateful that the Government have accepted the argument that we put forward in amendment No. 51. I was slightly puzzled that the Minister said that if the wording suggested by that amendment were adopted, a situation could arise whereby people ended up with a three-month, every-day parenting order. Amendment No. 51 would not have that effect because the period would still be only up to 12 months if we removed the restriction. However, I understand the Government's wish to table their own amendments, which will also introduce the residential component.
 The Minister's response has been helpful. What he said about tabling amendments to achieve exactly what amendment No. 51 is designed to achieve is welcome. We shall not press the matter in the light of the Minister's helpful concession.

Bill O'Brien: Order. May I clarify that the hon. Member who is in charge of this group of amendments is a Liberal Democrat?

Bob Ainsworth: I am not asking the hon. Gentleman to vote down or withdraw amendment No. 51. It is acceptable. The Committee should accept it, although it will need to be clarified by Government amendments. I apologise for causing confusion and I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole will move amendment No. 51.

Nick Hawkins: Amendment No. 51 is a Conservative amendment and the Liberal Democrats did not add their name to it, although they did to another one. However, the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole quite rightly expressed support for amendment No. 51. In the light of the Minister's response, I will move amendment No. 51 formally. The Government have said that they will accept it and we are obviously delighted—that is how Committees ought to work. The Opposition have come up with an amendment; in this case the other Opposition party have supported us; and the Government will accept it and will add other measures. That is tremendous and will lead to an improvement to the Bill. That is a good example of how a Committee stage ought to work.
 When the media talk about the proceedings in Parliament, it is sad that they pay so little attention to the hours that we spend doing line-by-line, word-by-word scrutiny. People outside this place get confused about the difference between Select Committees, interest group committees and Standing Committees, which are the most important of all. It is sad that too little attention is paid to the hours of work that are 
 done here. Perhaps the Opposition and the Government can use the present case as an example of how Committee work can improve a Bill. 
 I am sure that by introducing a residential element the Government amendments will improve matters still further. There is complete agreement between Opposition Members and the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) about the need to provide the resources for residential components. When he intervened on the Minister to ask about the residential aspect, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said to me that it would be a good idea to have a residential element. 
 The Minister might have slightly misunderstood what I said about the case in my constituency. That case was of a mother who, because of her son's dominant nature, needed a huge amount of help to show her how she could cope with him. The head of the special school said that there should be a provision whereby that mother could be taught how to do that. The mother would certainly have needed more than one session a week, so perhaps I did not explain very well. The Minister suggested that the mother might volunteer, but I do not think that she would have done. That example sprang to my mind as a case in which the Bill might help. 
 Having promised to move formally amendment No. 51, which the Minister has said he will accept, I am happy not to press our other amendments. However, as you rightly pointed out, Mr. O'Brien, the Liberal Democrat amendment is the lead amendment, so the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole is in charge of the group. I am sure that the Clerk will have advised you how the Committee proceeds formally in relation that.

Annette Brooke: I shall withdraw amendment No. 150, but first I want to comment briefly on it and on amendment No. 52. Now that the Minister has explained the regulations, we all understand—although we might not be very happy about the fact that there will be a lot of work, including a lot of consultation, to do after the Bill has gone through, the results of which we might have appreciated had they been available at an earlier stage. None the less, I ask him to consider the possibility that the position would be clearer if we put in brackets what the regulations covered, or if the headings on the list of regulations narrowed their scope. In that way, we could be reassured during the later stages of the Bill's passage that the regulations would not be a catch-all. I quite accept what the Minister said, but as things stand, regulations could mean a wide range of changes.

Bob Ainsworth: What has been said has been very constructive. If I can go further and provide drafts, I shall do so. If I cannot go that far but am in a position to provide some headlines, I can at least do that. We will look into doing that.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister, and I echo his comments: we have had a very constructive discussion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment made: No. 51, in 
clause 19, page 16, line 34, leave out 
 'and not more than once in any week'.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Vernon Coaker: I want to make two brief points. First, the Minister has announced a very radical policy, which represents a welcome development in policy terms. A residential component will be one of the options available under the orders, although we need to know a little more about what we mean by a residential option, and I hope that the Minister will tell us when he is able to. For the reasons given by many members of the Committee, it is important that such an option is available to help parents and families who are in desperate need of support to deal with some of their problems. I shall raise the issue again when we reach the housing part of the Bill. Part of the problem with housing is that local authorities will not evict families who cause mayhem—indeed, the courts will not give the orders—because they are worried about putting families on the streets. The residential option is therefore hugely important.
 We shall have to give serious consideration to how we support schools in pushing for parenting contracts or parenting orders, given that some parents are capable of intimidating teachers. Some teachers, schools and authorities simply will not pursue a parenting order or penalty notice for some families, because they are intimidated by them. The Minister and his colleagues have been considering how to deal with the problem, but unless we give teachers and other professionals the confidence to go down that route, the orders will be available but they will not be used because teachers and other professionals will be intimidated. We must reverse that trend and rebalance the situation so that it is parents who do not conform to society's generally accepted rules, not those who abide by them, who are intimidated. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 20 and 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 - Penalty notices for parents

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in
clause 22, page 18, line 23, leave out 'or a head teacher'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 154, in 
clause 22, page 18, line 25, leave out 'of a prescribed description'.
 Amendment No. 55, in 
clause 22, page 19, leave out line 13.
 Amendment No. 56, in 
clause 22, page 19, leave out lines 14 to 18.

Nick Hawkins: We now come to another important group of amendments. Our amendments Nos. 54, 55
 and 56 are grouped with the Liberal Democrat amendment No. 154. They deal with the Bill's changes to the Education Act 1996. Amendment No. 55 is crucial, and Opposition Members feel most strongly about it, as do many of those who represent the teaching profession. The Minister will be aware of that, as will his colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills.
 Classroom teachers do not want the power that the Government propose to give ''authorised staff members'' to start issuing penalty notices. I understand that. I have explained my links with the education world and the fact that members of my family have been heavily involved in teaching and education. Almost all the teachers in my constituency to whom I have spoken are aware of the proposals—much has been said about them in the various professional and trade union publications—and they say, ''You have simply got to stop this.'' 
 Most schools have one or two parents from hell, the kind of intimidatory parents who may live in traveller encampments, some of whom might come to the school armed. The teachers feel genuinely under threat. We have seen some tragic cases of teachers being threatened. The teaching unions often speak of the number of violent incidents. Sometimes the teachers are the victim of violence from the children; disruptive teenagers can be extremely threatening and sometimes attack teachers with weapons. 
 It is even more frightening for those who are sometimes referred to as NQTs—newly qualified teachers. They come straight out of teacher training college to schools in rough inner-city areas and suddenly find parents bursting into the school. If the Government get their way, such parents will burst through the security measures, wielding weapons and demanding, ''Why have you issued a penalty notice?'' As a result, fewer people will volunteer to go into teaching, and an even greater shortage of teachers is the last thing that the Government want. 
 It is not the Minister's fault, but the Government are under huge pressure because schools throughout the country are laying off staff. The Education Secretary has tried to blame the LEAs for hanging on to what he called the missing millions, but the vast majority of schools—including all the schools in my constituency—say that whatever money the Government claim to have given them has more than been wiped out by the increase in national insurance. The salary bills have increased because of the rise in national insurance, and all the teachers and heads in my constituency are asking what the Government are up to. 
 The Government may be giving with one hand, but they are taking away more with the other through the national insurance increase and the costs of bureaucracy. It is not surprising that every secondary head in my constituency and a number of primary heads have written to me in extremely strong terms, saying that they are losing teachers. Then, just as that is happening, the Government come along with something that the teaching profession does not want. It all very well saying that head teachers, with the backing of the governing body and the LEA, 
 should have responsibility for some of those powers, but it will not work for ordinary classroom teachers. I cannot stress too strongly that we must have amendment No. 55. I hope that the Minister will accept it, as he did the previous amendment. 
 I turn to the wider issue of truancy. Since the Government came to power, there has been a big increase in the absolute number of children playing truant at least once from primary and secondary school. Truancy increased by 17.16 per cent. between 1996–97 and 2001–02—the last year for which figures are available. These are Government figures. There has been an increase of 14.75 per cent. in the rate of pupils playing truant. That is a huge problem. I recognise that the Government are trying to tackle it in the Bill, and we are not critical of that at all. Indeed, the concept of parenting contracts originally appeared in a Conservative consultation document in 1996. This Government took it up in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and now we have this Bill. There is no difference between the two main parties on the principle of what we are trying to achieve. 
 The concern is not only that truancy is increasing. We believe from discussions with head teachers throughout the country that schools under-report the number of half-days lost through unauthorised absence. We think that there is under-reporting because schools have to declare the figures publicly and they might reflect badly on them. Given the increasing number of children playing truant at least once and the disincentive to report truancy, we conclude that the problems of truancy are getting worse. We hope that some of the measures in the Bill on which we agree with the Government will cause those trends to be reversed. However, the wrong way to tackle the problem would be to put the teaching profession, particularly ordinary classroom teachers, under huge pressures, so I do not believe that the Government have thought this measure through correctly. 
 Liberal Democrat amendment No. 154 is designed to deal with a Henry VIII-type clause, and we have no problem with it. In amendment No. 54, Conservative Members suggest that we should take out the words ''or a head teacher'' in new section 444B of the Education Act 1996. The provision would then refer to persons who may be authorised by an LEA to give penalty notices. That goes with amendment No. 55, which would take out the reference to other staff members authorised by the head teacher. Most crucial is amendment No. 56, which would take out the part of new section 444B(4) that states that 
'' 'authorised staff member' means—
(a) a head teacher of a relevant school in England, or
(b) a member of the staff of a relevant school in England who is authorised by the head teacher''.
 We would prefer penalty notices to be given only by constables or LEA officers, because they are distanced from the sharp end of the school. It would be more difficult for aggressive parents to try to get into a police station to threaten a constable, or to go the LEA headquarters, which may be miles away from the 
 school. It is the teachers—ordinary classroom teachers and, to some extent, head teachers—who are under threat. 
 The Minister must concede that there is an increase in violence inflicted on or threatened against teachers, including head teachers. All the evidence shows that, and there is huge concern about it in the profession. I sincerely hope that the Government will think again. I cannot put it any more strongly. I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say, and I hope that he will reconsider this measure. I rather suspect that, if the Government do not drop it now, they will have to do so in another place, because I cannot believe that it will get through there. This is one of the most crucial aspects of this part of the Bill.

Annette Brooke: I join the hon. Member for Surrey Heath in saying that amendments Nos. 54 and 55 are vital. I hope that he will press them to a vote. Amendment No. 154 picks up on the generality of the measure and asks for it to be clarified—if possible, in the Bill. So much is uncertain, and this is a difficult issue. All professionals will want reassurance about what exactly the legislation means.
 As the Minister is probably aware, the issue of penalty notices leads to some tussling among Liberal Democrats, because we are not necessarily keen on extending penalty fines. However, truancy involves a wide range of behaviour, including unauthorised absences when we know that the children are out shopping with a parent or on their own in shopping areas. There are many local initiatives to try to tackle that. Ultimately, LEAs have a severe problem: it is costly to take the court action that is necessary in some cases, and it can drag on if parents do not turn up to hearings. LEAS therefore need measures in their back pocket to tackle the issue. 
 Although I am concerned about fines impinging on families and increasing their poverty, I accept that they have to be available at the end of the line. However, I am totally opposed to their being imposed by teachers or head teachers. That is consistent with what I said earlier, in that I thought that they should be separate from the school. We have had amendments inserting references to head teachers; now the Conservative amendments are removing them from the equation. I agree absolutely that they should—it is vital that the matter should be kept separate from the school. 
 The problem is so complex that, although fines are a blunt instrument, I accept that they are necessary. We are considering such a wide range of issues—from those involving troubled and dysfunctional families to situations in which people just do not care—that it is not right for teachers or head teachers to be involved at all. In addition, there are increasingly instances of violence between parents and head teachers. We do not wish to provoke any more direct conflict, and the measure encourages confrontation, making life more difficult for everybody. 
 We have recently seen reports in the press of a mother going to prison. Many of us thought that that was terrible—[Hon. Members: ''It worked.''] We have to accept that it had a deterrent effect. I am trying to demonstrate the sincerity of my support for the 
 amendment. However much one recoils from the notion of sending a mother to prison for her children's truancy, fines are not so different and they are important. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge my saying that some of us were wrong about that case, and that in that spirit he will accept my comments on the important amendments, Nos. 54 and 55.

John Randall: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath, I have concerns about the inclusion of authorised staff members in this part of the Bill. My hon. Friend quoted the example of inner cities. Sadly, there are problems all over the country, and it is not just in cases of social deprivation that violence is perpetrated on teachers and head teachers or—while I am on the subject—shop workers. Violence against people in authority and in other positions is on the increase.
 I remember that some years ago, during an Adjournment debate just before a recess, the hon. Member for Gedling mentioned that one of the problems in today's society is a lack of respect. It was a very good speech; I have always remembered it. We know that that is a commonly held view because many of our constituents constantly tell us that there seems to be a lack of respect in today's world. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath, I have many teachers in my family. I married one, so I am not going to do down the teaching profession—that would not be good policy. It is sometimes said that, over the years, one or two members of the teaching profession have not brought it the respect that it should have. However, that is only a small minority. 
 To legislate in this way may lend the teaching profession a little respect. Over the years, I have come across many parents who are think that they can dictate what should be done, that their son or daughter is paramount and that the teaching staff do not know what they are talking about. It may help if they know that teachers have the power to impose these measures, but I have a feeling that, in today's world, that may result in much more pressure on the staff and on the school generally, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said. 
 Such problems regularly occur in one school in my constituency, which has been trying to sort them out. When new head teachers have arrived, some of the local families—I might say clans—have almost inspected them and tried to stare them out, which must be very frightening. Happily, things have improved for various reasons and the situation is now under control. The Minister for School Standards visited the school recently. 
 The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole was right: truancy covers a wide spectrum of society. Some people take unauthorised absence by taking their children out of school for holidays. The head teacher of the school to which I referred said that some of the families were slightly dysfunctional and that the kids might get more educational benefit out of being taken away for three or four days than they would if they were in school. That could be authorised: the 
 head teacher has the power to do that. However, many people take their kids out of school purely because going on holiday is a little cheaper in term time. 
 I understand the budgetary requirements of a family: I have three children and, as we know, hon. Members' holidays are taken in the school holidays. The prices necessarily go up in that period, and I understand the constraints, but taking children out of school does not give them a proper message about showing respect for the rules as they grow up. We cannot legislate for that, but it must be instilled in children because it could be said that the current generation of parents missed out on it, and that is why we have had some of the problems. 
 If I had not heard many members of the teaching profession say that they do not want the provision, I would have been neutral on the subject, because some teachers might require these powers. However, the Government should seriously consider that view, given that most hon. Members have had representations to that effect, unless we are to add to teachers' burdens and make recruitment and retention even more problematic—and there are problems with recruitment and retention in London and throughout the country. In trying to solve the problem of anti-social behaviour, we might be making it more difficult to tackle.

Liz Blackman: I have no problem with penalty notices being served on parents. It is part of the range of policies in the Bill, which uses a staged approach that is absolutely right. On Second Reading, some Opposition Members opposed this provision because they felt that it would break down the trust between the head teacher, the teachers and the parents, and we have also discussed trust this morning. I have no truck with that argument. If schools can demonstrate that parents are flouting a series of supportive measures intended to get the child back into school, the trust has already gone.
 However, I have some concerns about bureaucracy because the head or a senior member of staff may be tied up pursuing the fixed penalty notice through its course. Heads and teachers are busy people who already have a heavy administrative work load. I seek some reassurance from the Minister on that and on intimidation, which is another concern that has been expressed this morning. The Opposition have used the idea that the head teacher would authorise NQTs to issue penalty notices as a way of completely demonising and exaggerating the provisions. That is to be deplored, as there is no way that that would happen. We need clarification.

Matthew Green: My point follows from the contribution of the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman). I am particularly concerned about the catch-all nature of the term ''authorised staff member''. I share all the sentiments expressed by Opposition Members about the fact that teachers should not issue fixed penalty notices. If the Government insist on pushing the measure through, they should consider its current catch-all nature. The clause states that an authorised staff member is
''a member of the staff of a relevant school . . . who is authorised''.
 We have already been accused of trying to scaremonger about NQTs, but members of staff include school secretaries and caretakers. There are clearly groups of people whom the Government do not intend to hand out fixed penalty notices.

Siobhain McDonagh: To steal an idea from my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), does not the hon. Gentleman consider that the best people to issue notices would be school dinner ladies? They would have no fear of issuing them and they would do so appropriately. Many parents would not wish to mix it with the dinner ladies.

Matthew Green: The hon. Lady faces the problem that most school dinner ladies now work for companies that are contracted to do the job for the school, so not all of them are regarded as staff members. We are getting even more ideas from Labour Members now. Will they stop at truancy? Will riding a bike the wrong way down the school drive or smoking behind the bike sheds incur a fixed penalty notice?
 The clause states that regulations may make 
''provision for determining the local education authority to which a penalty is payable.''
 The money is payable to the LEA, and the school can be authorised by a member of the LEA. This may be the Government's way of filling the black hole in education funding. I realise that I am probably stretching the point. I was not going to make that point—I was pushed into it. 
 There is also a point of principle. The police are allowed to keep money from speeding notices only because it is used purely to cut speeding and improve road safety. Nothing in the Bill that says that the money from penalty notices will be used purely to reduce truancy. No amendment on that has been tabled, but the Government could examine the principle; otherwise, there will be potential conflicts of interest. 
 To return to the main point, if the Government insist on pushing through the measure, they should clarify who is an authorised member of staff. At the moment, the definition is wide ranging. The Government clearly do not plan for a newly qualified teacher to be handed the authorisation to slap penalty notices on truants on their first day at school.

Bob Ainsworth: Ah!

Nick Hawkins: I am prompted to rise by the Minister saying ''Ah!'' in a significant way. He was obviously anticipating that he would be able to say that the definition will not cover newly qualified teachers. Does the hon. Member for Ludlow agree that in many schools that have massive problems, particularly in some of the difficult inner-city areas, the vast majority of staff have qualified as teachers only in the past one, two or three years? The legislation contains no restriction to stop an authorised member of staff being a newly qualified teacher.

Matthew Green: That is precisely my point, and the Government should examine it. There is a potential problem, as the hon. Gentleman said, especially in
 some London schools, where it is rare to find a teacher who has been there for more than three years, such is the turnover of staff. Many teachers move from inner-London schools after their first two years to seek employment elsewhere. That is unfortunate because we need the most experienced in the more difficult schools, but there is a move away from that.
 Highly experienced teachers seem to like to move to beautiful Shropshire when they reach their 40s. That is great for us, as we have wonderful schools and wonderful teachers, but it does not help the staff salaries bill, because they are the more expensive teachers. That is another related problem. 
 Overall, the Government must clarify the definition if they want to push the power through. They will have problems in another place on the provision in general, so they will have to make it clear that only senior members of staff may issue fixed penalty notices. I would prefer it if the provision were not passed at all, but leaving it as wide as it is could cause unwanted side effects. More experienced members of staff are more likely to be able to issue penalty notices without it leading to violence. The rising incidence of violence against teachers by parents is a growing and concerning trend, and the more experienced a teacher is in dealing with both parents and pupils, the more likely they are to avoid such dangerous situations.

Bob Ainsworth: Clause 22 does not require anybody to issue a fixed penalty notice; it simply introduces a power to do so. Head teachers and senior school staff will be able to make professional judgments about whether to use the new power.

Nick Hawkins: Will the Minister give way?

Bob Ainsworth: Hold on a second. I will give way once I have got into my stride and said one or two things to which the hon. Gentleman may want to respond.
 Amendments Nos. 54, 55 and 56 appear to suggest that teachers are not to be trusted with the new power, and that they are incapable of deciding who is able to use the power and in what circumstances. A lot of silly stuff has been said, if not in the Committee, then before it started, about every class teacher and all NQTs being obliged to use the power. I reject that. 
 Before discussing the amendments, we had a debate—I believe that the Liberal Democrats were on one side and the Conservatives on the other—about whether it was a good idea for certain organisations to see themselves as being apart from all those important issues. We need light rather than heat on this important issue. 
 Some of the comments that were made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge were depressing. It worries me to have to say it, but we need to remember why we are here and why we were elected. Were we elected to accept the world as it is? Are we happy with it and with the levels of violence that occur? Do we believe that all such circumstances should be dealt with by the police and the police alone? 
 The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on policing, the hon. Member for South-East 
 Cambridgeshire, is present and will know, as I do, that the Conservative party is desperately trying to convince the country that, despite the record police numbers that we have achieved, the Conservatives would be able to provide many thousands more, although they have not identified where the money will come from. I also heard a spokesperson for the Opposition on the radio today or yesterday saying that the police should be concentrating on rural crime, but in the Committee the Opposition say that the only people who should be allowed to use fixed penalty notices to deal with truancy are the police—

Nick Hawkins: Will the Minister give way? We did not say that.

Bob Ainsworth: The police and the LEA, but not in any circumstances—

Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. O'Brien.

Bob Ainsworth: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a minute, to avoid his point of order.
 The head teachers and governing bodies of some, if not all, schools have the managerial skills to decide which individuals are capable of using the powers, and who should be authorised to use them. We cannot just accept that because violence is used against staff in such circumstances they should not be allowed to do so. Violence is used against staff in other circumstances. When detention and other sanctions are taken against children, a minority of parents sometimes exhibit incredible behaviour. Would it be said that that also was an issue for the police or the LEA, and that the school had no responsibility to provide enforcement in those circumstances?

Nick Hawkins: The Minister must not overstate his case. I can respond to some of his more high-flown rhetoric and his points about the police later. However, my point was that when he began his remarks he said that we must give power to the heads or to senior staff. As he knows, the Bill does not specify senior staff—it is unrestricted. He must understand that, while we in the Opposition are not accepting the world as it is, we have to communicate to him that the organisations that represent head teachers and teachers do not want those powers, because they will put teachers in a vulnerable position. His own Back Benchers will have received the same representations from those organisations as we have. The teachers do not want those powers because they are there to teach, not to take on extra risks. He is failing to address that concern.

Bob Ainsworth: It is wonderful when Conservative spokesmen become the lobby for the teaching organisations and teaching unions. Half the education reforms that have been pushed through would never have been passed if we had listened to what teachers wanted and what they were prepared to put up with at the time. Pain is often associated with change, and we must look at the reality of what we are trying to achieve and whether or not it is achievable. I accept that we are operating in a difficult area. However, we should not just accept it if the lobby
 says, ''No, we do not want it''. That is not a good argument for anyone to advance.
 Why do we want to restrict the provision to senior staff? I am the father of an NQT—I have never called her that before, not being into education jargon, but I thought that I should do it now, so that I can take Hansard home and show our Nicola what I have just done to her. It is not appropriate to delegate the powers to certain people. 
 What if the NQT were an ex-police officer? In order to chill out, I sometimes watch films such as ''Kindergarten Cop'', in which Schwarzenegger plays what we would call an NQT. Why must we specify in every circumstance a head teacher or a single member of staff? Have we no trust in the school establishment's ability to take sensible decisions about who should use the powers?

Matthew Green: The Minister said that all of us are here to change things; we do not necessarily accept things as they are. However, we are also here to ensure that we do not create open-ended powers that somebody somewhere might abuse. One of the aims of this Committee is to ensure that the law is tight enough that it cannot be abused later. Our concern is that this is not tight enough. The Minister's words are reassuring, but the Bill, as drafted, leaves it entirely to people's judgment. By and large we trust people's judgment, but the law should not rest on the judgment of teachers, staff or anybody else.

Bob Ainsworth: We clearly disagree. Let me put on record the Government's view, so that others can comment on what we are actually proposing. We expect most penalty notices to be issued by local education welfare officers, who also organise prosecutions for truancy. We believe that it is also right to give head teachers and senior school staff authorised by them the power to do that. We intend to use the regulation-making powers in the Bill to limit to senior staff those who may be authorised by head teachers to issue fixed penalty notices; that is not in the Bill. By senior school staff, we mean deputy heads, assistant head teachers and staff at the level of heads of department.
 At present, prosecution is the only sanction available to promote and to enforce school attendance. Penalty notices will provide a quicker, cheaper alternative for use in cases in which parents need a sharp reminder of their responsibilities. Prosecution can be expensive, time consuming and heavy handed for parents who are not hard-core offenders. Our overriding objective is to get the pupil who is truanting back into school. Education professionals will be able to choose the most appropriate method to do that.

Nick Hawkins: I am glad that the Minister is now on to the serious point and not on his rather fanciful comparison of the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to Arnold Schwarzenegger. The situation that the Minister describes, whereby guidance is to be given, is surely nothing like as good as being specific in the Bill. If he were to propose some Government amendments to restrict the responsibility, we would
 have a different debate. However, he must understand the point that the hon. Member for Ludlow and I have made: many schools—some in inner-city areas and others elsewhere—have few experienced staff other than the head. Even the Minister's guidance will not deal with that.

Bob Ainsworth: In those circumstances, the head will believe that there is nobody worthy of authorisation. He will therefore use the power; he will not delegate it. I cannot see a problem with that. Penalty notices are part of a range of options in a wide-ranging strategy to tackle truancy that includes national publicity, truancy sweeps, electronic registration and fast-track prosecutions as well as parenting contracts for truancy. 99
 The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole relates to the regulation-making power, which will set out the precise circumstances in which penalty notices may be issued. Removal of the words ''of a prescribed description'' would limit the breadth of the regulation-making power. As a result, it could not be used in a variety of circumstances. It is important that we retain the power to make such regulations. 
 We intend that the regulations will specify the circumstances in which a teacher might issue a penalty notice; they will be different from those in which an education welfare officer or a police constable might issue one. They operate under different circumstances and are subject to different duties arising under other legislation. For example, we would not want schools to issue fixed penalty notices to people other than their own pupils. Different regulations will be needed for different people. We would not want the same restriction to apply to constables involved in a truancy sweep.

John Randall: The Minister is making a quite persuasive case. Teachers would not mind those powers but for the fact that they are not confident of the police reacting quickly enough should something happen—whether in the school or, if they live locally, at home. If they could have confidence that a 999 call would get an instant response, the Minister's point would be valid.

Bob Ainsworth: I accept that we need to try to provide all members of the community, not only the teaching profession, with the confidence that back-up will be available when needed. However, unless we involve other agencies in the enforcement of antisocial behaviour orders, the police will never be able to give such an assurance because, no matter how many police officers we provide, they will be stretched every which way. We need other agencies to join in that responsibility.
 The Department for Education and Skills will consult local authorities, teachers, the police and 
 others about regulations or guidance made under the Bill. That process will determine how fixed penalty notices should operate according to who issues them. We need to take on board the expertise of the police about exactly how and when to issue fixed penalty notices, as well as that of the LEA and school staff. 
 Opposition Members have made it a fundamental issue. I think that that is a big mistake. We need to push back some of the barriers. We need to work at it. I do not suggest that it will be easy, but we cannot simply accept things as they are, backing off because of lobbying or because of the actions of a minority of violent parents. Those issues have to be dealt with. We have to find quick and cost-effective methods of allowing people to deal with them.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister is right to say that we believe that it is a fundamental issue. He is wrong to say that it would depend on the police, because we have not sought to take the LEA out of the equation. We accept that LEA officers, who are remote from the potentially violent parent, could do things.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge spoke about schools not getting an instant response. That happened recently at Shawfield school in my constituency; I received a letter about it only yesterday. Although Surrey police are excellent, on that occasion the school did not get an instant response. We cannot put vulnerable teachers in that position. We shall press amendment No. 55 to a Division. 
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 55, in 
clause 22, page 19, leave out line 13.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 It being after twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.